Standing Committee D

[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]

British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords]

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move,
 That, during proceedings on the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords], the Committee do meet on Tuesdays at half-past Ten o'clock and at half-past Four o'clock and on Thursdays at fifteen minutes to Ten o'clock and at half-past Two o'clock.
 I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Butterfill. It might be polite if I were to alert hon. Members to the fact that the Government have tabled a small amendment regarding an aspect of citizenship for the Ilois, in response to a point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on Second Reading. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 - British overseas territories

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ben Bradshaw: Clause 1 gives legal effect to the decision to change the collective of name of the territories from dependent territories to British overseas territories. This policy was announced in a White Paper in March 1999, and it is intended to reflect the changing relationship between the United Kingdom and these territories.
 Clause 1 substitutes ''British overseas territories'' for the old heading ''British dependent territories'' in schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981, and makes that change wherever else the phrase occurs within the 1981 Act. The clause also inserts into schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978 a new definition of British overseas territory, which would be the same as that in the British Nationality Act 1981. These name changes are simply alterations of labels and involve no changes to substantive law.

Richard Spring: First, I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Butterfill. I know that proceedings are in safe hands.
 We have no difficulty with the change described by the Minister. I agree that it updates the language of the definition of our relationship with overseas territories, and we are happy to support it.

Jeremy Corbyn: My concern, which I raised on Second Reading, is the inclusion of the British Antarctic territories in the list of British overseas territories. I acknowledge that nobody lives permanently in the British Antarctic territories, but with climate change one never knows—given time many folk may live there. There are two scientific bases, and although they are not permanently occupied, they are sometimes occupied for 365 days in a year. I realise that this may seem an entirely theoretical point, but I am questioning the inclusion of the British Antarctic territories because of the British claim on them.

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to debate that later in proceedings; it is not relevant to clause 1 stand part.

Jeremy Corbyn: I would not disagree with you, Mr. Butterfill, but perhaps I can help you with an explanation. Adopting clause 1 in its current form would not prevent me from making this point when we debate later amendments, but it would mean that the Committee would have approved what we agree to be British overseas territories, and I am at variance with that view. Is it in order for me to proceed?

John Butterfill: If the hon. Gentleman wishes, his amendments can be grouped with clause 1 stand part and debated now. That would replace their present grouping. I would be happy to permit that, but I should stress that they could not be debated again later.

Jeremy Corbyn: If that is the case, we will come to the issue in due course, when I hope to catch your eye.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - British overseas territories citizenship

Ben Bradshaw: Clause 2 does for citizens what clause 1 does for territories. It changes the terms British dependent territories citizenship and British dependent territories citizen, as provided for in the British Nationality Act 1981, into British overseas territories citizenship and citizen respectively. It also provides that all references to British dependent territories citizenship and citizen in any enactment, including secondary legislation, made before commencement of the Bill should be read as British overseas territories citizenship and British overseas territories citizen. The changes are the corollary of those made to the collective name of the territories. They are simply alterations of labels, not changes of substantive law.

Michael Moore: I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Butterfill, and if the Bill continues at this rate, I look forward to serving under you for what may be a short time. We support the thrust of the Bill and wish it a speedy passage. Due to a prior commitment, I cannot be here for the full sitting this morning, but the speed of the proceedings may make that irrelevant.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Conferral on British overseas territories citizens

Michael Trend: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (2).

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 4, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 and 40.

Michael Trend: I welcome the Bill. It has the support of the Conservative party and puts right a past injustice.
 I would like to make a small observation about the procedure of the Bill, which I also hope to cover under new clause 6. The Bill offers a rare opportunity to discuss British overseas territories. One can write to the Minister, but it is a complex matter in which some of us have developed an interest and it is unusual to have an opportunity to discuss it. On Second Reading, I suggested to the Minister that the Committee could have an informal meeting to discuss the Bill before formal proceedings began as the other place has done in recent years. The Minister said that he was happy to do so. I am sure that he has good reasons for not arranging such a meeting as he has written long, detailed letters, which are available in the Library. 
 I cannot pose all my questions through amendments, but I want to follow up a question I asked on Second Reading with a probing amendment. Pre-meetings are useful for finding answers to basic questions, especially in respect of non-contentious Bills with little party-political sport. 
 The amendments would remove the references to the sovereign bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus. On Second Reading I asked the Minister about their constitutional arrangements and he told me that they were governed by treaty. I should like to know more about the treaty, why British nationality cannot be conferred on people born on those bases, what happens when a service man has a child and—a question much debated at the time of the 1981 Act—what happens to foundlings. Foundlings are an extreme and unusual circumstance, but it does happen from time to time. If someone went to open the NAAFI on Monday morning in Akrotiri and discovered a baby neatly wrapped in—[Hon. Members: ''Swaddling clothes''.] It would be more likely to be a sheet, as the climate is pretty hot there.

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but foundlings are fully covered by new clause 2 and should be debated then.

Michael Trend: Of course. I mentioned it now only because people in the sovereign bases in Cyprus have a unique national status.

John Butterfill: Order. I am happy for a reference to be made to it now, but foundlings should not be debated until we reach the new clause.

Michael Trend: Of course I understand, though it is the acid test for this amendment, too. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. Will the Minister tell us more about the arrangements in the treaty and explain what provision can be made for the extraordinary circumstances that I mentioned?

Ben Bradshaw: Let me start by addressing some of the general points that are slightly outside the narrow scope of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend). I understand his desire to discuss the overseas territories more extensively. I felt the same on Second Reading, when I was immensely impressed with the level of knowledge displayed by right hon. and hon. Members who have obviously spent time becoming experts on some of the more obscure parts of our former empire.
 I know that the hon. Member for Windsor contacted my office and I hope that he received courteous and informative responses. We invited 69 hon. Members to a meeting, though it was before Second Reading, and only six turned up. I apologise for not arranging another meeting between then and now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that my office and that of my noble Friend Baroness Amos are open to him. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked why the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus are excluded. I spelled out the reasons on Second Reading, but will try to provide more detail now. The bases are restricted to military purposes under the 1960 treaty of establishment, which was signed by the British Government and the Government of Cyprus. I will provide the hon. Member for Windsor with more specific details from the treaty. 
 In the 1960 treaty, the United Kingdom gave an undertaking not to set up and administer a wider community, and it would be unwise for us to jeopardise our—not always easy—arrangements with the Government of Cyprus over an important military base by committing what they might consider to be a provocative act that contravened the spirit of the treaty. 
 It is also important to remember that most civilians who live within the boundaries of the two bases are Cypriot nationals, even though they are, or could qualify as, British dependent territories citizens. Many of them are from the pre-existing village of Akrotiri, which falls partly within the boundaries of one of the bases. 
 As hon. Members know, Cyprus has applied to join the European Union, and when its entry is finalised—hopefully sooner rather than later—there will be no other benefit to be gained from British citizenship. The hon. Gentleman asked about children of British service personnel who are born in Cyprus. They are British citizens by descent. He also asked about foundlings—that lovely term. They will automatically become British dependent territories citizens, but neither they nor other residents of bases will become British citizens. 
 Hon. Members should also bear in mind that Cyprus is at an important crossroads between the middle east and Europe. We have already had difficult experiences with refugees from the middle east landing in Cyprus and claiming asylum in the bases. The potential to acquire British citizenship through the back door could be a huge pull factor and make us, and Cyprus, vulnerable to a large influx of asylum seekers. We want to avoid that if we can, because it would also undermine the military integrity of the bases.

John Randall: How do the asylum seekers arrive? Do they get in by coming along the coast? I ask the question from the point of view of security. The bases are military, and if asylum seekers can get in, one wonders who else can.

Ben Bradshaw: They arrive by sea and most of them are accommodated in a refugee camp. As I said, the base in Akrotiri has expanded to envelop part of a village that has also expanded. Asylum seekers who are there at the moment do not pose any particular security risk. However, if we extended the treaty's provisions to cover the bases, there would not just be a handful of people who might be eligible for British citizenship. The fear is that more people would be attracted to go to Cyprus and make applications for asylum. I should add that none of the asylum seekers there has been granted asylum.

Jeremy Corbyn: What would be the British Government's attitude if a political arrangement was reached in Cyprus and there was a demand for the return of the bases to Cyprus sovereign territory? A previous president favoured that, and there is a body of opinion that there should be no British sovereign bases in Cyprus.

Ben Bradshaw: I cannot predict what the Government's response would be, but the status of the bases is enshrined in the 1960 treaty, and their future would have to be agreed with the Government of Cyprus.

Lindsay Hoyle: Commonwealth soldiers or Gurkhas could be serving in Cyprus. If their children were born there, would they have British nationality as they are on a British sovereign base in Cyprus?

Ben Bradshaw: No, they would not, because sovereign bases are excluded from the provisions. Such children would, however, be entitled to British overseas territories citizenship.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will press the issue a little more to ensure that I understand it. Would a Gurkha family based in Cyprus have the right to British overseas territories nationality?

Ben Bradshaw: Not necessarily. My hon. Friend asked whether their children born there would have that right. The child would have the right, but the parents would not have the right just by residency.

Michael Trend: That is an extremely interesting answer. May we return to the position of children born of uncertain parentage in the bases? The Minister said that such children would be entitled to British overseas territories citizenship, which, as I understand it, is the first stage in being granted British citizenship. However, in the case of the sovereign bases in Cyprus, I do not believe that there is a procedure to transfer BOTC citizenship into British citizenship. When such children grew up, would they be left in limbo, unable to progress to British citizenship? What would happen to them?

Ben Bradshaw: In the vast majority of cases, they would also have dual citizenship as they would have Cypriot citizenship, but there is no procedure for them to gain British citizenship as the bases are outside the provisions of the Bill. They would simply have British overseas territories citizenship.

Michael Trend: So it is theoretically possible for a child who was discovered in the sovereign bases to acquire British overseas territories citizenship but not Cypriot citizenship and to have to retain that for the rest of their lives without becoming any other sort of citizen.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. It is theoretically possible.

Michael Trend: I am grateful to the Minister and intrigued and intrigued by his replies. I would be grateful if at some stage his office could fill me in a little further. I am particularly interested in how law operates on the sovereign bases and whether they operate under the law of Britain, the law of Cyprus or military law, as this is part of the legislative arrangements made for them.
 I accept that we must adhere to the treaty with the Government of Cyprus. Matters will be made much easier by Cyprus joining the European Union and I am in favour of that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 23, at end insert
''or the British Antarctic Territories''.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 7—British Antarctic Territories—
 ''This Act shall not apply to the British Antarctic Territories.''.

Jeremy Corbyn: The amendment and new clause would remove the British Antarctic territories from the purview of the Bill and thus create no further problems about the British territorial claim.
 There are a number of reasons for this. British Antarctic territories are a claim on part of Antarctica. Chile, Argentina and many other countries also have claims, most of which overlap each other. Hardly any part of Antarctica has not been claimed by several countries at the same time. 
 This has created the potential for enormous conflict. I shall not weary the Committee with a full history of Antarctica, but say simply that there have been two pieces of legislation on it in the past 15 years: the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 and then the Antarctic Act 1994. 
 The Antarctic Minerals Act was designed to allow for mineral exploration. After an environmental protocol was agreed, the Act was superseded by the Antarctic Act which was designed to put into British law the environmental protocol, which meant there would be no mineral exploitation and only scientific research would be done in Antarctica. 
 A large body of opinion in the United Nations and elsewhere has two beliefs. The first is that the Antarctic should be seen as a world wilderness park and not as the subject of competing territorial claims. That is reflected in the spirit of the environmental protocol. Secondly, it supports the rapid establishment of a secretariat and committee to protect Antarctica from overbearing tourism because it is a pristine environment that needs protection. Unfortunately, there has not been as much progress as there should have been on the implementation of the protocol, despite the principles behind it. 
 Removing Antarctica from the Bill would be seen as a step towards the principle of a world park. A theoretical case concerning potential British citizenship in the future could be incredibly complicated. What if a group of people pitched up in a part of Antarctica that had been claimed by Britain, Chile and Argentina? There are such territories. As the territorial claim is not widely recognised around the world, there is no point in having it in the Bill. I believe that for administrative purposes it has been dealt with by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because no one could think of where to put the Antarctic office. 
 My hon. Friend the Minister is enjoying his position responsibility for British overseas territories, despite being terrified by the number of hon. Members who are walking encyclopaedias on the subject. I invite him to consider the amendment and thank him for a helpful letter and excellent map that he sent to me. If I may say so, the map proves my point, and he should encourage the Foreign Secretary to make arrangements for the Foreign Office to have an Antarctic office. I do not believe that there will be many takers for the role of high commissioner, although I imagine that the Government Whips Office could press for it to be a political appointment. I could see strong competition for a politically appointed high commissioner for the Antarctic. Will the Minister turn his attention to those matters? 
 Differently from the rest of the world during the 1950s, Antarctica was taken out of the cold war equation by a 1957 geophysical conference, which recognised it as a zone of peace. That principle was developed by the environmental protocol on the understanding that the pristine environment must be preserved and used only for limited eco-tourism and scientific research. Removing Antarctica from the Bill would be a helpful step in that direction. 
 I am sure that the Minister understands my point, and he is welcome to visit Antarctica with me so that we can look at it together.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that we could invent a new Christmas game and discuss whom we would like to send to be governor of Antarctica. Several hon. Members from a sedentary position have already volunteered some of their colleagues.
 The hon. Member for Islington, North is right, and hon. Members who have not seen the map should have a look. It is extraordinary as it looks like one of those cakes that we normally associate with shares of votes in general elections. There is no doubt that the situation in Antarctica is complex, and segments of the cake are claimed by more than one country. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that parts of the section claimed by the United Kingdom are claimed also by Chile and Argentina. 
 The amendments would exclude any person holding British overseas territory citizenship solely by connection with the British Antarctic territory from being granted British citizenship. New clause 7 would have the further effect of excluding British Antarctic territory from the change of collective name that the Bill effects. I am not sure whether that is my hon. Friend's intention. Citizenship is being granted to individuals, not to territories. It has no impact on the sovereignty of those territories or on our or anyone else's claims to sovereignty where they are disputed. 
 If we excluded the British Antarctic territory on the grounds that our sovereignty over it is in dispute, we should also, logically, exclude all other territories where sovereignty is similarly disputed. That would include the Falklands and the British Indian Ocean territory, whose people my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North strongly argued should, exceptionally, be included in the grant of citizenship. There is no reason to exclude such territories; on the contrary, there are good reasons in principle to include them. 
 Including the British Antarctic territory in the list of qualifying territories under the Bill has no impact on the international position of our sovereignty claim, which is held in abeyance along with all other pre-existing claims on Antarctica under article IV of the Antarctic treaty. Under United Kingdom law, the British Antarctic territory is treated as an overseas territory and as such should be included under the terms of the Bill. It should certainly be included in the change of collective name from British dependent territories to British overseas territories. As I said, that reflects our new relationship with the territories as set out in the 1999 White Paper. 
 My hon. Friend raised concerns about citizenship and the possible environmental impact of people flocking to live in the British Antarctic territory. Despite global warming, that is an unlikely prospect, even in the medium and long term.

Richard Spring: Except for penguins.

Ben Bradshaw: Yes.
 I assure my hon. Friend that access to the British Antarctic Territory, which is already strictly controlled, and access arrangements under the legislation will remain completely unaffected by the Bill. People will not be allowed to go there willy-nilly. We have cordial and friendly discussions with the Chileans and the Argentines about the territory. We have scientists there and they have personnel based there, so far without any problems in our bilateral relationships with those countries. Against that background, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. My amendment was not necessarily concerned with the title. The territory could be called many things, such as the Antarctic world park—British presumed section.
 I have two points. There are many territories where there is a dispute about territorial claim. One can think of Kashmir, the Falkland Islands and many other places. However, even where there is a dispute involving a number of countries about a place, there is usually a high degree of recognition that it is currently held by one country. With Antarctica, no one recognises anyone else's claim at all, although the Minister is right that all those claims are held in abeyance and there is quite a good working relationship. 
 However, that relationship is not good enough to extend as far as agreeing the setting up of an environmental secretariat to help to police the environmental protocol. I urge the Minister to do all that he can to encourage a secretariat to be set up, by coming to an agreement with Argentina, Chile and South Africa about its location. 
 I agree that it is unlikely that a large number of people will be living in Antarctica in the near future. Therefore the issue of citizenship is not overwhelmingly important, although I believe that we have a responsibility to that continent to preserve it as a world environmental park. I tabled the amendment largely for that reason. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Trend: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
 The amendment would remove the linkage in clause 3 between British citizenship and the British Nationality Act 1981. I understand that the amendment would cause havoc for the Bill and I do not want to do that, but I want the Minister to say more on one point. The 1981 Act insists that an overseas citizen must fulfil a residency requirement before he or she can enjoy benefits in this country such as education and social services. That is fair for most cases, but for the poorer territories, it would be desirable to remove subsection (3) and, thus, the linkage. 
 Some territories covered by the Bill are wealthy and would not wish to take part in an agreement on shared rights and responsibilities. However, some of the poorer countries, if offered the opportunity to take a full part in British life—paying taxes and enjoying benefits—would almost certainly fall heavily on the benefit side of the equation. In such territories, it is impossible for ordinary people to achieve a tertiary education. 
 The Minister wrote in a letter—he writes well—that the Government recognise the special circumstances of some territories and have tried to help by setting up a good government fund for civil servants in areas such as police, prison and fire services, immigration services, accounting and internal audit departments and children's services. The Minister's letter lists the relevant islands. Those services are important to administrators, who make up a good part of the British Government, so it is understandable that the Government are keen that there should be good government on the islands. 
 However, the scheme leaves two things out of the equation. First, the arrangements do not offer a degree of certainty or continuity, which even small and distant communities need. Secondly, there is no reference to higher education for ordinary citizens of the islands. 
 Imagine a parent on Pitcairn, St. Helena or Ascension Island whose child has received a basic education through the island's excellent education system but then finds that there is no prospect of further education without going to Britain or another country. As they proudly bear the title of British citizen, and as there is no possibility of higher education in their own country, it would be reasonable for them to assume that they would not have to fulfil a residency requirement in this country. A parent on Ascension Island who wanted their child to go into higher education would have to come to Britain and fulfil the residency requirement or pay overseas fees until the residency requirement has been met. Both options are expensive. 
 I imagine that few individuals would fall into that category, and I know that scholarship funds and other assistance are available. It was suggested in another place that universities should accept the responsibility, take up the challenge and be generous. One hopes that they will. However, in conferring nationality and tying it to the 1981 Act, we lose an essential flexibility. If we were to determine, on the basis of national income, a percentage of national income, or average national income, which populations should be entitled to subsidised higher education, as is the case for British citizens, we would be doing the territories a great service. 
 The principle behind the amendment is to appeal to the Minister to understand and to help families and individuals in territories where there is no higher education by making the link with Britain clearer and giving them the same financial assistance as people have the right to expect by dint of residency in this country. The problem cannot be solved unless someone helps; the new British citizens have a right to some clarity and certainty about their future position.

Ben Bradshaw: There may be some misunderstanding of subsection (3), which is about the problem of inheriting British citizenship. It ensures that when the Bill is enacted, British overseas territory citizens not living in a British overseas territory are classified as British citizens by descent to ensure that their children do not inherit British citizenship. It is a principle of our nationality law that British citizenship can be inherited only through one generation unless there is another reason—residence, for example. I shall not be surprised if you rule me out of order for responding to the points made by the hon. Member for Windsor, Mr. Butterfill.

John Butterfill: I shall be lenient.

Ben Bradshaw: Thank you. The points that the hon. Gentleman made about rights such as access to higher education, benefits and so on that we enjoy as residents of the United Kingdom were made on Second Reading and in the House of Lords. Those rights have nothing to do with citizenship, although we have great sympathy for citizens in overseas territories such as St. Helena, who do not have easy access to higher education. It would be extremely difficult to extend more rights to those people than are enjoyed by UK citizens who are born and bred in the United Kingdom, because children who are born and bred here who live abroad for more than three years lose domestic access rights to higher education.
 The misunderstanding behind the amendment is that the residency requirements that the hon. Member for Windsor referred to are not governed by the British Nationality Act 1981, but by other primary and secondary legislation, for example, on education and health.

Michael Trend: I am sure the Minister understands the intention of the amendment. I had hoped to give notice of the issues I wanted to raise. I am interested in what the Minister said and I am disappointed that he could not enter into a discussion on a matter about which I spoke earlier, which was not ruled out of order. If he has further thoughts on the predicament of people who live on the islands and their dilemma about higher education for their children, I shall be glad to hear them.
 If people living on the islands were asked whether they wanted to join in the tax and benefits system of the United Kingdom, some would say yes. They would not find that onerous; in some cases, their average income is extremely low, but they would fall mainly on the benefits side of the system, which would include higher education. However, they have not been given that choice. Some people on the wealthy islands would not touch such a proposal with a bargepole as it would interfere with their other arrangements. 
 I am concerned mainly with the islands that are, by our standards, extremely poor and cut off, one or two of which do not have a future unless the new generation is educated and has a chance to return home and encourage prosperity—

John Butterfill: I have been very tolerant in allowing the hon. Gentleman to stray pretty far from his amendment. My tolerance is now stretched rather more than it should be and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would conclude. Does he intend to withdraw the amendment?

Michael Trend: With a sense of disappointment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ben Bradshaw: Clause 3(1) sets out the basic rule by which British citizenship is conferred on existing British overseas territories citizens, as renamed by the Bill, and it provides for automatic acquisition of British citizenship. The Secretary of State will appoint the commencement date by order.
 Subsection (2) sets out the only exception to the rule: those who owe their BOTC status to sovereign base areas on Cyprus. If a person were a BOTC by connection with another overseas territory, he or she would still be eligible for British citizenship. The base areas are excluded because of their establishment by treaty with Cyprus, under the terms of which they can be used only as military bases and not for the creation of any wider community. 
 Subsection (3) defines which of the persons who become British citizens under subsection (1) are to be treated as British citizens by descent for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981. That is necessary, as I intimated in my reply to the hon. Member for Windsor, because such persons cannot normally pass citizenship automatically on to their children.

Michael Moore: On Second Reading we debated the practical steps required for commencement. The Minister has subsequently written to Committee members to explain them. I am still confused about the practical difficulties that may delay commencement. We have heard about training, and presumably passports are an issue, but those issues have been mentioned since the Bill began its progress in the other place. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made? My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is concerned that the citizens of St. Helena should have a chance to become British passport holders before the island's 500th anniversary. Is that still on course?

Ben Bradshaw: Although the hon. Gentleman says that the difficulties have been debated for months, we hope that the Bill will become law quickly. Territories have different views on how the passports should look and practical problems arise. We are confident that we will meet the 500th anniversary deadline that is so important to the people of St. Helena.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Acquisition by British overseas territories citizens by registration

Question proposed, that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ben Bradshaw: Clause 4 explains how British citizenship may be acquired by registration. It provides for future British overseas territories citizens to be registered as British citizens after commencement of the Act. It explains that the Secretary of State will have discretion to register British overseas territories citizens as British citizens, except in certain circumstances.
 The exceptions include persons who owe their status solely to association with the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus. They are excluded for the reasons that I have already outlined. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Acquisition by reference to the British overseas territories

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ben Bradshaw: This short clause introduces schedule 1, which details further ways in which British citizenship may be acquired after commencement through association with a qualifying British overseas territory. The general aim is to put the qualifying territories in the same position as the United Kingdom for the purposes of the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981, which relate to acquisition of British citizenship through birth, adoption and ancestry.

Parmjit Dhanda: This is the first Standing Committee on which I have served, and it is nice to serve on a Committee that has such unanimity. That is largely because the Bill is inclusive, and its most inclusive aspect is clause 5, which raises some interesting questions.
 On adoption and abandoned children, the clause refers to an appointed day and the right of abandoned children to have British citizenship, which is positive. The Bill also closes some loopholes and allows the child of a couple who are British citizens to have British citizenship. However, what is meant by an appointed day? Could there be a time lag, especially in adoption, between the start of the process and an appointed day?

Ben Bradshaw: The appointed day is simply the day on which the Bill is enacted—its commencement. Anyone who is found abandoned—a foundling—or who is put up for adoption will have those rights. I did not catch the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

John Butterfill: Order. That relates to schedule 1, not clause 5. Clause 5 is the enabling clause to schedule 1, and there will an opportunity to debate such issues in the debate on schedule 1.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Repeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ben Bradshaw: The clause is self-explanatory. There are no issues of substance. The clause simply refers to schedule 2, which lists the enactments repealed to the extent specified in the schedule.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Short title, commencement and extent

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 12, after 'Schedule 1,' insert—
'(aa) section (The Ilois: citizenship)'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 1—The Ilois: citizenship.
 Amendment No. 8, in schedule 1, page 4, line 12, at end insert— 
'''; or— 
 (c) and persons removed from the Chagos Islands and their descendants''.'.

Ben Bradshaw: I take it that I will speak to amendment No. 8.

John Butterfill: Yes.

Ben Bradshaw: The amendment would exceptionally extend the granting of British citizenship to Ilois who are born outside the British Indian Ocean territory on or after 26 April 1969 and before 1 January 1983 whose father was not British, and who were unable to inherit their mother's British nationality under the law at that time. The amendment will grant to those persons British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship. That will put them in the same position as all others who will become British citizens after commencement.
 The Government recognise the unique double disadvantage faced by the Ilois that was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Linlithgow on Second Reading. The Ilois will benefit from the amendment because they were excluded from the British Indian Ocean territory and the fact that the law at the time prevented them from inheriting British nationality from their mothers. We accept that there is a strong moral case for including them in the grant of citizenship. 
 After 1 January 1983, Ilois born outside the British Indian Ocean territory were able to inherit British nationality from either parent, subject to the normal restrictions on the transmission of citizenship to children born outside British territory. Before 26 April 1969, there was no policy of exclusion. Therefore, the Ilois who left the British Indian Ocean territory before that date are not subject to the same disadvantage as those who are prohibited by Government policy and British Indian Ocean territory law from returning. The Government cannot be held responsible for actions taken in individual cases before that policy was decided. 
 Will you allow me to speak to amendment No. 8, Mr. Butterfill?

John Butterfill: Yes, it is in order.

Ben Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill.
 Amendment No. 8 would extend British citizenship to all Ilois born in and outside the British Indian Ocean territory and their descendants. All Ilois born in British Indian Ocean territory will be eligible for British citizenship under the Bill. Extending the grant of citizenship to future generations would put the Ilois at an advantage over all other overseas territories and British citizens by descent who cannot pass on their citizenship to future generations. In contrast, the Bill as amended by the Government will put the Ilois born outside British Indian Ocean territory, and therefore British by descent, in exactly the same position as other British citizens by descent. 
 In the light of my explanation, I ask the Committee to approve the amendment.

Richard Spring: We welcome the new clause as it closes an important loophole in the Bill and goes some way to rectifying the sense of injustice felt by the islanders for their treatment by Britain in the 1960s. The arrangements made by the British and United States Governments saw the people of the Chagos islands removed from their homes and conveyed to other Indian ocean islands. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Islington, North for raising the issue on Second Reading and, with the hon. Member for Linlithgow, for bringing the matter to the attention of hon. Members. I think that most Members were ignorant of the islanders' plight.
 As the hon. Member for Islington, North eloquently pointed out on Second Reading, the islanders feel dispossessed of what was their homeland and shabbily treated by Britain. The recent case in the High Court won them the right of return, but no date was set for it to be effective. The question remains whether it applies now or in 2016 when the lease expires. The judgment appeared to contain no qualifications. The Bill would have excluded those born while the Ilois were in exile from their islands from qualifying for British citizenship. That would have been unfair and unreasonable, and we welcome the resolution of the matter this morning.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for moving the amendment this morning and for recognising the strength of feeling that was put forward on behalf of the Chagos islanders by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and myself on Second Reading and during an Adjournment debate in the House. My hon. Friend has, in particular, taken a long-term, consistent and honourable interest in the plight of the Ilois people from the Chagos islands. The least that we can do is put right as far as we can the wrong that was done to them.
 I will not go into all the background, because it is not necessary. However, it is worth placing on record that it was a particularly shabby act as part of the cold war strategy in the 1960s for someone to decide that Diego Garcia would be a nice place for a base and to remove the islanders with minimal compensation. The Ilois have stayed together as a community—mainly in Mauritius, but some in the Seychelles and a few scattered around the world—in poverty and with a burning sense of injustice. The least we can do is pay tribute to Olivier Bancoult and the others for conducting the campaign and for taking the case to the High Court. We should put on record our appreciation of Richard Gifford of Sheridans for representing them and winning their case on right of return. I realise that it is not the burden of the Minister's amendment, but it should go on record that those people fought democratically, peacefully and legally and won their right of return. I look forward to a meeting that Mr. Bancoult is having with Baroness Amos next week when we will further examine right of return and practical financial support from Britain for education, social and economic purposes. 
 The Minister pointed to the past ridiculous imbalance because of gender discrimination on rights of dissent, and the amendment puts that right. Will he explain the selection of 26 April 1969 and January 1983? The concept of the British Indian Ocean territory was established in 1965 so it would be logical to use that date. 
 My amendment, which may be technically deficient, proposes a right of British citizenship by descent from a male or female Chagos islander. If we create a cut-off date of 1983, we suggest that people have to pay a penalty for being removed from the island. Everyone accepts that it was wrong to remove them, and they have a right to return, which is now established in Government policy and law. It is slightly perverse to put a limit on that. 
 Yesterday, we had a useful meeting with the Minister and his officials in the Foreign Office, for which I am grateful to him for arranging. It was explained to me that if a Chagos islander—an Ilois person—returns to their island on the agreed date of return, they can assume British citizenship by virtue of residency in a British overseas territory and any children are entitled to that as well. If a person born of a Chagos islander since 1983 were denied the right of British citizenship, that could create an exceptional loophole. That person would have Mauritius citizenship, but his or her children would have British citizenship despite the fact that their parents were living with them in the Chagos islands. That may sound complicated but it is not really: I am trying to simplify it. I am glad that everyone is so understanding. Will the Minister deal with that point? 
 If it is in order, Mr. Butterfill—I do not want to stretch your patience further—can the Minister clarify the progress of studies on the right of return and its environmental circumstances? I realise that that is stretching the amendment, but I would otherwise be forced to return to the point later, and no one would want that. Is the Minister aware of legal concerns about the American occupation of part of Diego Garcia? Does the right of return and citizenship extend to the people there, or are they excluded by the presence of the American base and the treaty between Britain and the United States?

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going too wide. I have been tolerant but he has already strayed into his new schedule, which we cannot consider because of the lack of a money resolution. I have been tolerant but he has already strayed into his new schedule, which we cannot consider because of the lack of a money resolution. He is now referring to matters that are without the scope of the Bill.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall swiftly move back into the scope of the Bill. What does the Minister believe the situation would be of persons resident on the American base in Diego Garcia, which is clearly within the purview of the British Indian Ocean territories? I assume that all persons resident, occupied and working for the base, some of whom are civilians, will be excluded from the provisions of the Bill but I think it is important to have that clearly on the record.
 We should also put on record our thanks to all those who have brought about the beginnings of a sense of justice for a people who have been so grievously wronged by the arrogance of various Government's in the 1960s and 1970s. These people were ignored and forgotten for far too long.

Michael Trend: I have one question but I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Islington, North and the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Linlithgow who have fought tirelessly on behalf of this population for some years. In connection with the loophole, are the Government now confident that they have complied with the High Court judgment last year?

Ben Bradshaw: I will start by answering the question from the hon. Member for Windsor. Yes, we are satisfied.
 I also congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North and thank him for all his hard work and for drawing this loophole to the Government's attention. Like all Committee members who have taken the trouble to find out about the plight of the Chagos islanders, I can only feel shock and incomprehension that people could have been treated in that way in my lifetime. One of the positive signs that we have moved forward on human rights, thanks to the pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and others, is that such treatment would be impossible today. We are going a long way to make good the damage that was done in the past. 
 The reason for the cut-off dates is that 26 April 1969 was the date when the Prime Minister of the day signed off the policy of exclusion from the British Indian Ocean territory. So we are not going back any further because anyone who left the British Indian Ocean territory before that date did so voluntarily. Using 26 April 1969 as the cut-off is generous because the vast majority of Chagos islanders who did leave left significantly later. We have drawn the measure as widely and as generously as possible. 
 The reason for the cut-off in 1983 is that that was the date at which people could begin to inherit British citizenship or British dependent territories citizenship, as it then was, through their mother, which they could not do before if they did not have a father with British citizenship. The provisions would bring back in—probably only a few hundred people at most—those who otherwise would have been excluded from the Bill. 
 The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North would extend indefinitely the inheritance of British citizenship for the Chagos islanders. We do not believe that is necessary because, as of November 2000 they have the right to return, and future generations will inherit British citizenship by virtue of their residency in the British Indian Ocean territory. The amendment is not desirable because it would set an enormous precedent for British citizens and British overseas territory citizens all over the world who will then ask why they cannot inherit British citizenship through the generations even if we are not resident in a British overseas territory or in the United Kingdom. 
 The Bill will not disadvantage the Chagos islanders. Under the Government amendment, the children of the Chagos islanders who were forced to leave will automatically be granted British citizenship. If those children go back to the Chagos islands, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will automatically become British citizens. 
 Finally, my hon. Friend asked about progress on the feasibility study. It is still on course for completion by the middle of 2002. Any further phases will depend on the outcome. He also asked whether the Bill covers people resident in Diego Garcia. It covers only those who are currently British dependent territory citizens; anyone who is not will fall outside the Bill's scope.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I was asking specifically about the Ilois people—their rights of descent and the adoption of British citizenship. It is recognised in law that these people were wrongfully removed and it is perfectly clear who they are. Records have been assembled and only a limited number of people are involved. I see no reason why the Bill cannot make specific provision—analogous to the amendments and the new clause proposed by the Minister—to acknowledge the Ilois people's rights to British citizenship, on the basis of the legal recognition that they were wrongfully removed from the Chagos islands. That would not affect any other people who freely chose to move from one British overseas territory to live somewhere else. It would be specific to the Ilois people.

Ben Bradshaw: The Government amendment is narrowly drawn because we felt that the children of Chagos island mothers had suffered a double injustice. They would not otherwise have been included in the Bill. My hon. Friend is asking for a much wider extension in the light of the acceptance of the principle of return. That is unnecessary and would open us to claims from other British overseas territory citizens for the same right now that the impediment for the Chagos islanders to return—their right to inherit British citizenship through subsequent generations—is no longer in place. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

Jeremy Corbyn: I hear what the Minister says. The Government amendment represents an enormous step forward and I thank him and the Foreign Secretary for it. Many people are happy, particularly those in the Chagos islands and Mauritius, who are visiting the Foreign Office next week for further discussions. I am not, however, satisfied with the Minister's final point. We had the same discussion yesterday and no doubt will debate the matter again. Although I may return to the issue on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Butterfill: Order. Although we are debating the hon. Gentleman's amendment together with the Government amendment, he does not need to withdraw it now. It needs to be moved formally before it can be withdrawn. If, when we reach amendment No. 8, the hon. Gentleman does not move it, that will be sufficient for it to fall.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. In that case, I will not move the amendment, but simply reiterate that I may wish to return to the issue on Report.

John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman does not have the opportunity to move the amendment at this stage of our proceedings and, now that he has assured me that he does not wish to move it, I shall not need to call it.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - The Ilois: citizenship

'(1) A person shall become a British citizen on the commencement of this section if—
(a) he was born on or after 26 April 1969 and before 1 January 1983,
(b) he was born to a woman who at the time was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of her birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory, and
(c) immediately before the commencement of this section he was neither a British citizen nor a British overseas territories citizen.
 (2) A person who is a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1) is a British citizen by descent for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c.61).'.
 (3) A person shall become a British overseas territories citizen on the commencement of this section if—
(a) subsection (1)(a) and (b) apply in relation to him, and
(b) immediately before the commencement of this section he was not a British overseas territories citizen.
 (4) A person who is a British overseas territories citizen by virtue of subsection (3) is such a citizen by descent for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981 (c.61).—[Mr. Bradshaw.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2 - Abandoned infants

'Citizenship conferred under the terms of this Act upon any abandoned infant shall apply to that one person alone.'.—[Mr. Spring.]

Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I want to be clear that there are no loopholes by which those who are not otherwise claiming citizenship could do so. It must be spelt out that the abandonment of an infant, who then acquires British citizenship, would not lead to the granting of citizenship to his parents or guardian if they later reclaimed that child, unless the adults were entitled to it in their own right. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me about the matter on 3 December. 
 We are pleased that there is provision for abandoned infants found in a British overseas territory, however we must be sure that there no loopholes that benefit the unscrupulous through the manipulation of infants, and we should note that in our proceedings. 
 The noble Lord Rooker in another place replied to a similar amendment tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Rawlings. He stated that there would be no grounds for such parents or guardians claiming citizenship under the measure, but I should be grateful if the Minister would make it crystal clear that the proposal is explicit about it.

Ben Bradshaw: I can reassure the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). It is right that abandoned infants and foundlings who are discovered should have the right to British overseas territory citizenship and in this case British citizenship under the Bill. That right would not extend to relatives who subsequently popped up; indeed, if parents, guardians or relatives did so and it was then discovered that the child had no right to British citizenship because the parents were not British overseas territory citizens or British citizens, the British citizenship that had been conveyed on that child could be removed.
 An impact of the new clause would be to deny the right of a foundling or child then to confer British overseas territory citizenship or British citizenship on their own offspring, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want. I therefore ask him to withdraw the proposal.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will my hon. Friend clarify the position in the case of an orphaned child, or a child who had been abandoned but who had some records, such as a passport? I am aware that those circumstances would be rare.

Ben Bradshaw: In the case of any child whose origin is uncertain, the question is whether they were abandoned in this country. The Bill brings the British overseas territories into the same system as we enjoy in this country, where the assumption is that the child has a right to be a British citizen; that remains the case. If a foundling is discovered with a passport, which I imagine would be rare, the assumption must be—I am taking advice from my officials— that they have another nationality, which would exclude them. They would keep their nationality.

Richard Spring: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and do not wish to pursue the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3 - Application of European rules on citizenship

''European Union rules governing citizenship shall not extend to British Overseas Territories Citizens who claim British Citizenship, unless, and until, they become naturalised and exercise their right of abode in the UK.''.—[Mr. Spring.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The intention of the new clause is to clarify issues that have not been fully explained. The Bill raises broad and important questions about the overseas territories and their relationship with Europe. Alas, the Minister's letter of 3 December, which addressed some of the issues, reached me only after I had tabled the amendment. As I understand it, citizens of the territories will become EU citizens but will not be bound by EU law and regulations until such time as they take up the right of abode in the United Kingdom. However, there are still several grey areas. It would be useful to have a statement from the Minister that there are no EU obligations upon the governments of the territories or upon their citizens who are not resident in the EU. 
 We must be equally clear about threats of interference in the constitutional relationship between the UK and our overseas territories. Are dual nationality and citizenship possible, should citizens so wish? My noble Friend Baroness Rawlings, asked that question in another place but did not receive a reply. It is important that the Minister lets us know what representations, if any, the Government have received from the European Union about the legislation, and how it assesses its impact and issues of reciprocity. 
 I seek to make it totally clear that EU rules will not apply in the British overseas territories. I appreciate the point made by the Minister in another place that the new clause would deny freedom of movement and other EU rights to the citizens of the territories. That was not the aim of my new clause, which is intended as a probing amendment. I believed that a clarification of responsibilities and obligations under the Bill was necessary and that the new clause was the best way to achieve that. It should be made clear that EU law shall have no force in the territories or over their citizens, unless they are resident in the United Kingdom. 
 I find it difficult to believe that our EU partners, with reciprocity in mind, will be happy to allow new British citizens full EU rights without any obligations upon them in return. Such obligations would be entirely unacceptable unless acquiesced to by the governments of the territories concerned. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation.

Ben Bradshaw: I shall go through the points that the hon. Gentleman raised one by one. No, we do not have a problem with dual nationality; it will be possible. We have received no representations at all from the EU or from individual EU countries. The Bill is about citizenship, not sovereignty or constitutional change. It has no effect on the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the overseas territories or between the territories and the European Union. Any agreements that the territories have entered into with the EU stand; they are free to enter into more if they so wish. However, there is no obligation on the territories to adhere, for example, to EU directives.
 As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the new clause would deprive the new British citizens in the territories of their full rights, until they are resident in the United Kingdom. I am sure that he does not want to do that. It would also take away the rights that British overseas territories citizens who have acquired British citizenship through the British Nationality Act 1981 but are not resident in this country enjoy as European Union citizens. Those rights cover free movement in Europe, setting up businesses in Europe and so on. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Richard Spring: I am grateful to the Minister for making those points. It is vital that we understand the distinction, and I am happy that he has made it clear today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5 - Report

'Within 12 months of the commencement of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs shall lay a report before Parliament setting out—
(a) the number of British Overseas Territories Citizens taking up British Citizenship;
(b) the number of these taking up right of abode in the UK;
(c) the cost per applicant;'.—[Mr. Spring.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

John Butterfill: With this we may discuss new clause 6—Annual report—
 'The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament on the British overseas terrorities'.

Richard Spring: I want to talk mainly about openness and transparency. We would all welcome news of the numbers of new British citizens as a result of the legislation. We have taken into account the Government's response in another place and have included information that we feel it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to collate and make available. As yet, we do not know how many British overseas territories citizens will benefit from the legislation and how many will exercise their new rights to live in the United Kingdom. It would be appropriate for the House to be made aware of such figures under the new clause, so that we might monitor the procedures' effectiveness. I recognise that every citizen will automatically become a British citizen, but the number acquiring a British passport as confirmation of status would be an adequate indicator.
 An annual report on progress would serve the vital functions of monitoring the effectiveness of procedures and the legislation and of keeping this very important issue on the agenda. 
 The Minister was kind enough to inform the House on Second Reading that the cost of applying for a passport would be a uniform £46 across the territories. We had concerns about that, so we welcomed the information. However, we should be updated at regular intervals, as costs tend to increase over the years and we must ensure that the price remains reasonable. 
 I welcome the Government's undertaking in another place to provide as much information as possible, but we must ensure that we are provided specifically with statistics. They will assist the House to build up an accurate picture of the viability and popularity of emigration from overseas territories and the success of this move forward in our partnership with them.

Ben Bradshaw: I am afraid that I cannot give the exact numbers that the hon. Member for West Suffolk requested, but it has been said in many places that 200,000 people will benefit from the Bill. It is worth reminding hon. Members, particularly those who have not been involved in previous debates on the subject, that 70 per cent. of the people under discussion enjoy a higher gross domestic product per head than we do. Therefore it is highly unlikely that we shall suddenly face a huge influx of people coming to live in this country, particularly given the difference between our climate and that of places such as the Cayman Islands.
 As the hon. Gentleman said, new clauses 5 and 6 would commit the Government to producing and publishing annual progress reports. We shall, of course, want to monitor the implementation of the Bill, and some things that he asked us to do are fairly straightforward, such as publishing the number of people who apply for British passports. I expect that that will be self-financing, because the fee levied for issuing the passport will cover the cost. 
 The figures for registration and naturalisation will also be published. It will not be possible to provide figures for those who exercise their right of abode in the United Kingdom, because the Bill will create new British citizens who can come into the country on full British passports as freely as Committee members can. They will not be subject to any immigration controls. 
 As I said to the hon. Member for Windsor, there are many opportunities in this House and in the other place to discuss making a provision for an annual report that would cover the British overseas territories. Such a report goes beyond the scope of the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for West Suffolk will withdraw his new clause.

Michael Trend: You have been tolerant and patient with us this morning, Mr. Butterfill, as has the Minister.
 The new clause is at the heart of what I tried to say on Second Reading. All of a sudden, we have opened the window and many people have suddenly become walking encyclopaedias on the British overseas territories. That will last only for a short time before the window slams shut again and we lose sight of the territories. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk is right. We need to know how the Act will work. We also need to be updated regularly on the constitutional arrangements that are being made in the territories. We need to know how the public administration training is going, what is happening in higher education, and about the airport or the new ship for the islands. We also need to know about citizens' health rights. 
 I was intrigued to hear about the European Union and whether those citizens will need residency to fill in E111 forms for health care when in Europe. There are all sorts of complications, which will no doubt be sorted out in offices in the territories. We are making provisions for British citizens and have a grave responsibility to them. They have no other formal voice in the British Government who retain an enormous amount of power over them. 
 If there were a way of asking about the Pitcairn Islands and its complications, I would do so. It has a curious system in which its legislative authority appears to be New Zealand, although its police operate at a high level from Kent. There are complicated issues that it would be nice to raise from time to time. The White Paper ''Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories'' was excellent. There could be an annual report to Parliament, which we could debate if necessary, so that such matters could be raised. 
 I also suggested that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs might want to consider such a report annually. The Public Administration Committee, on which I serve, has an appointment—once a year or more—with the ombudsman and a Cabinet Secretary to keep them in touch with where we are. I understand that there is an annual meeting in September in London of representatives of the territories, although I may be wrong. 
 I would be intrigued to know whether that meeting is held every year and always in London. If so, perhaps that would a good time for the Select Committee to plug into the system and have a sitting, or at least send a Clerk. There would then be a constant interchange. It is difficult, even in the age of the e-mail, to keep in touch with all the territories throughout the world. 
 Will the Minister consider whether there could be an annual report? He has, as always, been gracious about such matters, but I want to press him to make a commitment on this modest request.

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. This is also my first Committee and I am pleased that there has been such consensus. So far, so good. My experience as a Minister has been brief and I am not immediately responsible for this subject. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the immediate responsibility of my noble Friend Baroness Amos.
 I have the impression that, far from being under-represented, the overseas territories are very well represented, not least by several hon. Members in the Committee. There are 200,000 people in those territories. On Second Reading, 12 or 15 hon. Members spoke with great expertise about issues ranging from the airport at St. Helena to the environmental impact of bird-lime in the Pitcairn Islands. My constituency in Exeter, with a population of 110,000, just has little me to represent it, but the residents of the overseas territories have many walking encyclopaedias, as they were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. I do not think that the overseas territories need worry too much about their voice being heard. 
 As my hon. Friend said, representatives pay regular visits here. Next week, I am meeting a group of St. Helenians and my noble Friend in the Lords is meeting a delegation of Chagos islanders. There are always opportunities for hon. Members to secure debates on individual territories, or all of them, in Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall and for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to scrutinise our work. Indeed, there may be an argument for the Committee to invite annual delegations to give evidence on how the new legislation is bedding in and other topics. The Foreign Office publishes an annual report on human rights, which includes references to the overseas territories. I hope that the hon. Member for West Suffolk is content that that is enough and that they have full representation in the House.

Richard Spring: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor in saying that the Minister has been unfailingly courteous and helpful during our proceedings. Although we will not press the matter further, I hope that efforts will be made to keep hon. Members informed about progress following the successful passage of the Bill. As he has reflected and we have noted, there is huge interest in and concern for the overseas territories, and it is important that the Bill's effect on citizenship is monitored and that we give the overseas territories a view on our relationship with them. I hope that we can get a commitment from the Minister and the Foreign Office on that, although it will not be as specific as we wanted.

Michael Trend: I do not wish to detain the Committee on the matter at this stage, but will the Minister reconsider before the Bill is considered on Report whether an annual report could be made to Parliament?

Richard Spring: I agree with my hon. Friend. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.